Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Joe Roe

Bot
Is it just me, or are the !vote stats not updating? -still seeing 0-0-0, both here at at WP:RFA. Unless of course Joe Roe is such an outstanding candidate that the software can afford to take the day off :) &mdash; fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 19:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * to the rescue :) it always amazes me how one *tiny* ****ing # is enough to repeatedly balls-up these things. &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 19:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Somebody removed markup. **— CYBERPOWER  ( Happy Thanksgiving) 19:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmmm CIR at its worse ;) I always wanted to see a nominator get desysopped in the middle of their nom's run :p  :D  &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 19:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing the markup that says "Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded"? :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fresh RfAs should have a # in every section.— CYBERPOWER  ( Happy Thanksgiving) 23:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yamaplos comment
For example, instead of me saying PG in that previous sentence, I should write WP:PG, that would then show as WP:PG, maybe helping us noobs perhaps get more involved in the RfA process? -> WP:RfA. (then perhaps understanding such acronyms without needing an explanation is a proof of someone being a Worthy Editor, able to get involved?. I cringe at how complex it has become to go beyond basic good-will editing, to dealing with debate and differences of opinion, and how "being an insider" has become a bullying stick for some who are). Best wishes and good hunting, Joe Roe! May you be a friend of the noob, also! Yama Plos  talk  16:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish people who use acronyms that point to PG would link/wikimark those.

Responses to MPS1992's oppose
He suggested speedy delete based on G4: the article had been previously deleted and it appeared to be moved to mainspace to avoid the review of AfC reviewers. As a non-admin, Joe didn't have access to Special:Undelete, so he wouldn't have been able to see if the content was substantially different. I would have declined the G4 comparing the two articles, but I also have the advantage of being able to look at the deleted revisions. I don't really think it fair to oppose Joe based on information he had no access to. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree on that. By !voting G4, he expressed an opinion that the previous consensus (from 2014) still applies to the new article. The new article however contained information the 2014 article could not have contained (see my !vote below) which anyone, not only an admin, could and should have seen. Maybe we should refrain from all commenting on a single !vote and let the candidate reply to it iff they think it wise to clarify their !vote back then? Regards  So Why  08:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've followed up on this in response to SoWhy's comment in the neutral section below. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I note that Ms Devaney’s article is a BLP containing accusations of kidnapping; erring on the side of deletion for stuff like that is a reasonable stance to take. Since the article was kept at AfD, it has seen several content disputes and SPAs edit warring on it, so keeping it might be considered a bit of a phyrric victory. Just my 2c. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  00:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above comments as leaning on the side of caution in the situation of G4 possibility and possible defamatory content is more than a reasonable stance to make on that AfD. Also, forgetting to check MUSICBIO over 10 months ago is definitely not half a ground to oppose in my opinion. Further, others including admin Primefac had as well. Anyway he would have almost certainly changed his !vote had he checked back on that.  J 947  (c · m)  05:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, Primefac just missed that chart. Other points are still valid though.  J 947  (c · m)  05:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @TonyBallioni the G4 is ten months ago, I won't oppose over such an old mistake unless there were more recent examples showing it to be an ongoing problem. But I don't accept that this was a mistake that only an admin could have avoided. The previous AFD was in 2014, at the time of the 2017 AFD the article referred to a "first major release" in 2015 that "went platinum" in 2016. That info was available to non admins, suggesting G4 on an article whose major assertion of notability is dated more recently than the previous AFD debate is sloppy, the sort of mistake that should deter an aspirant for adminship from running for several months.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I !voted "keep" in that AfD, but it was a marginal case and on a different day I might have !voted "delete". Here's why. If I do a Google News search for "Charlotte Devaney", and filter on hits that would normally meet WP:BLPSOURCES and existed in January, I get : "Lapdancers cleared of kidnapping club boss who refused to pay them" (The Daily Telegraph), "Cheltenham lapdancers cleared of kidnapping" (BBC News), "Cheltenham lapdancing club boss 'lied' about kidnap" (BBC News), "Three lapdancers kidnapped boss after he refused to pay them, court hears" (The Guardian), "Nightclub boss 'lied about being kidnapped'" (Birmingham Mail), "Out of control’ lap dancers ignored no-stripping rule, says club boss" (Daily Telegraph), "Lapdancers kidnapping of Cheltenham club boss 'pure fantasy'" (BBC News), "Cheltenham lapdancers' 'heavy' Alex Morris jailed" (BBC News). So this talk about meeting WP:MUSBIO or the film appearance is kind of missing the elephant in the room about the kidnapping, which is the only thing the major national broadsheet news sources talk about. Certainly, not everyone likes the kidnapping and some have tried to remove it or replace the citations with "better" ones like the Daily Star., , plus the principal contributor to the article was blocked for sockpuppetry. I smell a paid editor, or at the very least someone with a massive conflict of interest. Bringing us bang up to date, there's been a run of edits adding that Devaney is Renee Short's granddaughter, without sources, naturally; fortunately none of them brought up this Daily Mail hit piece that also talks about her drug addiction. To cut a long story short, this article is a complete train-wreck, and deleting it per G4 (and by extension, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:TNT) is well within the bounds of administrator discretion, in my view. (See also Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Such a deletion may be perfectly justified, but please label it correctly. "Per WP:BLP and WP:TNT" is a deletion rationale I can accept any day under WP:IAR. Pretending something is a G4 that isn't a G4 is absolutely not okay. Admins have to be accountable to the community, and clearly labelling your deletions is an important part of preserving that accountability. If a new article about the same person isn't a repost, but there clearly is substantial new content, do not delete it "per G4". —Kusma (t·c) 10:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can think of several admins who would have deleted this via G4 even with the ability to view the deleted version and likely had their call upheld at DRV because of the reasons Ritchie explained: the interpretation where sourcing and information that post-dates an XfD disqualifies an article from G4 is one commonly held position but it is certainly not the only one. I do hold that interpretation personally, but it’s also something I’m likely not going to notice unless I’m comparing the versions side-by-side and checking the articles against each other. The ability to see the deleted text is helpful here and I can’t really fault non-admins for viewing it as G4 without that ability, especially given the history of attempts to create. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Joe !voted delete in Articles for deletion/Charlotte Devaney (2nd nomination) on 3 January 2017. I !voted in the Afd giving multiple links to keep on 11 January 2017. The Afd was closed on 18 January 2017. Joe neither reviewed his position in the 15 intervening days, nor commented to justify his continuing G4 !vote. If the argument is that Joe doesn't review !votes after leaving them in Afds (and that's why couldn't review the !vote), I wouldn't accept that because in my review of his contributions, he is a model editor reviewing all his discussions till they close. Ergo, I am led to believe that this is simply a gross misunderstanding by Joe, which he continued to believe in for a fortnight despite significant logic to the contrary. Joe himself accepts below: "I overlooked the discrepancy between the 2016 information and the original deletion in 2014, which I agree merited a fresh consideration of the subject's notability." Some of our current admins commit errors – deleting/declining speedies under mistaken criteria, relisting Afds without considering the reengineered softdelete option, etc – but the important part is, they accept these errors when pointed out, correct them and we all move on happily. We should leave this simply at that. Joe made a mistake, accepts it, and wouldn't probably repeat this in the future. And even if he does, I expect Joe to be absolutely amenable to course correction when and if pointed out.  Lourdes  11:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the best explanation I have ever heard of what we should be looking for in terms of admin temperament. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Hearing someone say "oops, I guess I was wrong" is the best thing that can happen when the occasional mistake is made - because everyone is going to make at least one mistake as an admin. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The histrionics and sneering tone in the Oppose are not helpful. Kablammo (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In one of them, yes. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 13:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt: It is the oppose of  which is the subject of this discussion.  Kablammo (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

's support
Bambenekcd1 is an indeffed non autoconfirmed VOA who might be someone's sock, should their "vote" be struck out? Thanks L3X1 (distænt write)  16:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck. Linguist un Eins uno 17:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Could someone fix the oppose !vote numbering please?
Hopefully the header's caught the attention of someone who knows how to fix it but if not - Could someone fix the oppose !vote numbering please?, I have no idea how to do it myself so shan't even attempt at trying, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Kindly fixed by Mr rnddude, Thanks :). – Davey 2010 Talk 16:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem . Those numbers are as sensitive as Microsoft Word's bullet points. They'll break for any reason. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Ahhh right, Okie dokie thanks again much appreciated – Davey 2010 Talk 18:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)